Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Posted on December 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Many poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life savings for treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as, cancer, have been virtually priced out of the access to patented new drugs, across the world. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, prices of these medicines are increasingly getting disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of these products.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, as there is not even a remote possibility of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

There is no recent worthwhile Government action either, to give shape to its an important decision on this issue, in a meaningful way. That critical decision was also scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), and was notified on December 07, 2012. On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

Just a couple of months after, on February 21, 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in a communication to the stakeholders announced that the committee to examine the issues of ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Drugs’ has since submitted its report to the Department. Simultaneously the stakeholders were requested to provide comments on the same urgently, latest by March 31, 2013.

Following this long overdue report, lack of any worthwhile action, both by the previous and the current Governments, possibly coming under a strong pressure of the self-serving interests of the constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade associations, is indeed glaring. I shall dwell on that in this article.

A brief recapitulation:

As stated earlier, almost a decade ago, an expert committee was constituted by the Government to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

This committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the pharmaceutical industry, including large multi-industry trade bodies like – FICCI, various NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration. Simultaneously, it had commissioned a study of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of patented drugs in many countries, across the world, for independent research based inputs for this report.

Salient features of the report:

The salient features of this expert committee report were as follows:

Scope of recommendations:

The Committee in its final report recommends price negotiations for Patented Drugs only towards:

The Government procurement/reimbursement
Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

Even after calibrating the prices based on Gross National Income with Purchasing Power Parity of the countries, where there are robust public health policies with the governments having strong bargaining power in price negotiation, the prices of patented medicines will remain unaffordable to a very large section of the population of India. Such countries were identified in the report as UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand.

Thus, the government should extend Health Insurance Scheme, covering all prescription medicines, to all those citizens of the country who are not benefitting under any other insurance/reimbursement plan.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

The committee identified three categories of patented drugs, as follows:

A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence
A drug that has therapeutic equivalence, but also has a therapeutic edge over the existing ones
A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

It recommended that these three categories of Patented Drugs would require to be treated differently while fixing the price.

The Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’:

The Report recommends a committee named as ‘Pricing Committee for Patented Drugs (PCPD)’ headed by the Chairman of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to negotiate all prices of patented medicines.

As CGHS, Railways, Defense Services and other Public/Private institutions cover around 23 percent of total healthcare expenditure, the members of the committee could be invited from the Railways, DGHS, DCGI, Ministry of Finance and Representatives of top 5 health insurance companies in terms of the number of beneficiaries.

Recommended pricing methodology:

For ‘Price Negotiation of Patented Drugs’, the report recommends following methodologies for each of the three categories, as mentioned earlier:

1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:

The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.

In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.

The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.

The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out in India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.

The same methodology would be applicable to medical devices also and all the patented medicines introduced in India after 2005.

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly.

PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine.

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.

PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documenting evidence.

This process may be complex. However, the report indicates, since the number of medicines discovered and developed in India will not be many, the number of such cases would also be limited.

Negotiated prices will be subject to revision:

The report clearly indicates that ‘the prices of Patented drugs so fixed will be subjected to revision either periodically or if felt necessary by the manufacturer or the regulator as the case may be.’

Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

Pharma MNCs reportedly said that ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They also expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’. Nevertheless, from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, such as, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA), Pharmexcil, Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) and Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI), there emerged strong voices of support for this Government initiative

DIPP expressed apprehensions:

Interestingly, though the DoP had proposed in the report that once the Patented Drug Policy is implemented the issuance of CL may be done away with, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly commented with grave caution, as below:

“If it is decided that Price Negotiations on Patented Drugs should be carried out, then the following issues must be ensured:

Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.

Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

The status today:

The bottom-line is, a decision on the pricing policy for patented drugs is still pending with the Government, since a decade.

Post February 2013 report, without assigning any specific reasons, the whole process, intriguingly, came back to the square one. On February 2014, the DoP reportedly again decided to constitute another inter-ministerial committee to consider the subject, and recommend the pathway for its implementation in India. Nothing tangible has happened, since the first experts’ committee submitted its report, six years after it was formed, to address this critical patient-centric issue of the country. Effective governance remains a key issue in the health care space of India, even today.

The chronicle continues. On August 23, 2016, ‘The Indian Express’ reported that: “Gross negligence, lackadaisical attitude, vested interests, are some of the terms used in a report by the Parliamentary Committee on ‘Government Assurances’ on August 11, 2016, for the DoP on the latter’s inability to regulate the prices of patented medicines even after almost a decade of deliberation on this issue. While the NDA government has been in power since 2014, the second committee is yet to submit its report, it said.

However, in the end, the Parliamentary Committee reportedly said: “The Committee would like the ministry to take the proactive steps to expedite the proper follow action to finalize the requisite mechanism of patented drugs at the earliest and in the best interest of the country so that these medicines are made available to the common people at most affordable rates.” Let’s continue to wait and watch!

Conclusion:

I reckon, a robust mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ would also benefit the global pharmaceutical companies to put forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive innovative drugs in India. At the same time, the patients will have much greater access to patented drugs than what it is today, due to Government setting the purchase of these drugs at a negotiated price.

It’s about time for all those who are responsible for framing drug and health elated policies to introspect whether ‘policy paralysis’ is continuing, even today, in this area under intense pressure of vested interests. If not, the counter question that needs to be satisfactorily answered: While several secretaries have changed in the DoP since 2013, why is the policy on patented drug pricing, mooted by the Government a decade ago, not moved forward even an inch, to safeguard the patients’ health interest?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Even Smaller Countries Now Question Indian Drug Quality Standard

Posted on December 5, 2016 by Tapan Ray

India has over 135 US-FDA approved pharmaceutical manufacturing units, at present. This number is very significant ranking second behind the United States, and was driving the growth of generic drug exports in the top pharma market of the world. Riding on the wave of such stellar progress, a hubris seems to have set in the related operational areas of many Indian pharma players, especially the drug exporters.

This incredible ride continued, until a first major jolt shook all concerned in this business. It came first in the form of an unprecedented hefty fine for wrong doing, followed by the US- FDA ‘import bans’ of several drugs, manufactured around 44 different Indian drug-making facilities, since over the last five years.

The first major jolt:

Not so long ago, just in 2013, quality related concerns with generic drugs exported from India came to the fore, after Ranbaxy reportedly pleaded guilty and paid a hefty fine of US$ 500 million for falsifying clinical data and distributing ‘adulterated medicines’ in the United States.

Thereafter, US-FDA banned drug imports from Ranbaxy and Wockhardt, manufactured in all those facilities that failed to conform to its cGMP quality standards.

Those are the stories for generic formulations. It then covered the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) too. On January 23, 2014, USFDA notified Ranbaxy Laboratories, that it is prohibited from manufacturing and distributing APIs from its another Indian manufacturing facility in Toansa. With this step, erstwhile Ranbaxy had virtually no access to the top pharmaceutical market of the world.

Was it for raising the bar of quality norms?

Many of us felt and expressed that ‘import bans’ of Indian drugs due to failing quality parameters, manufactured in certain facilities of largely Indian pharma companies, are mostly due to higher stringent quality norms of the US-FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Nevertheless, this argument does not carry much weight, as an exporter will always have to conform to the set quality standards of the importers, whatever these are.

Indian drug regulator too made a much avoidable remark:

Unfortunately, amid such a scenario, instead of taking appropriate transparent and stringent measures, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) was quoted by the media saying, “We don’t recognize and are not bound by what the US is doing and is inspecting. The FDA may regulate its country, but it can’t regulate India on how India has to behave or how to deliver.”

The DCGI made this comment as the then US-FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg was wrapping up her a weeklong maiden trip to India, in the wake of several ‘Import Bans’ arising out of repeated cGMP violations by some large domestic generic drug manufacturers. Whereas, Hamburg reiterated the need for the domestic drug manufacturers conform to the USFDA quality standards ensuring health and safety for American patients, the DCGI’s above comment appears rather arrogant, out of tune, and was avoidable, to say the least. Instead, some serious corrective regulatory measures should have followed.

On the above comments of the DCGI, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly reacted by saying, “Indian drug regulator is seen as corrupt and colliding with pharma companies…”.

Smaller countries initiated similar action:

It now appears that this situation is going from bad to worse and malady is much deeper. Smaller countries, such as Vietnam, have recently banned products of a sizable number of domestic pharma exporters.

On September 5, 2016, a leading business daily of India reported: “Close on the heels of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Vietnam to strengthen bilateral ties, including defense, security and trade, the ministry of commerce and industries is planning to set up a committee, along with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), to inspect Indian pharmaceutical companies which have been banned from Vietnam for exporting sub-standard drugs.”

In 2014, the Drug Regulatory Authority of Vietnam ‘red-listed’ about 50 pharma companies for alleged regulatory non-compliance in their manufacturing practices. The names included, some big names of Indian pharma industry.

Overall pharma market size of Vietnam is estimated over US$ 2 billion, and expected to grow to US$ 8 billion by 2020. A significant chunk of Vietnam’s pharmaceutical market comprises of generic drugs, where India used to be a major exporter. In the recent years, however, Indian pharmaceutical product exports to Vietnamese market have dipped considerably, reflecting the effects of the ban, with exports declining by 12 percent to US$ 146 million in 2015-16 from US$ 165 million in the previous fiscal year, the report said.

It was envisaged, especially after the Prime Minister’s visit to Vietnam, this situation will improve notably. However, just as what happened with the USFDA on related issues, there has been no change in the overall situation in this case, either.

Further, on November 23, 2016, yet another Indian Business news daily reported that 39 Indian drug companies have been blacklisted by Vietnam for quality standard violations, along with some others in Bangladesh and South Korea. The Vietnamese regulator has listed the names of all blacklisted companies on its website, without specifying in detail the exact reason behind the bans. The Indian products include, antibiotics and anti-rabies vaccine, among others. The latter was also reportedly banned by the World Health Organization (WHO), in January 2016.

What is more intriguing, despite the Union Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Commerce and Industries of India being aware of it, the issue seems to have drifted beyond reasonable control of the Indian regulators.

Some local companies still not acting:

On Feb 24, 2016, the US and the EU drug regulators reportedly called upon India’s pharmaceutical sector to step up efforts to improve manufacturing standards, and ensure the reliability of data, if it wishes to maintain its dominance in the generic drug industry. In the report, the director of the office of surveillance at the USFDA – Russell Wesdyk was quoted saying, “some Indian companies are still not taking enough steps to identify risks and failures at their firms.”

“Data integrity really sounds-off alarm bells for us. If you see data integrity on the surface, there is likely a lot going on underneath,” the foreign drug regulators reportedly commented.

These comments are profound, especially considering that India supplies about 33 percent of medicines sold in the United States, and nearly a quarter sold in the UK. Similar Indian drug quality related issues are now being raised by even smaller countries.

How safe are drugs for domestic consumption?

Many reasons may be attributed to quality concerns on Indian generics in the United States. Nonetheless, another question that surfaces alongside, if cGMP violations can take place for drug exports, despite rigorous compliance checks by the foreign drug regulators, what could possibly happen when the same system is so tardy in India? Are we consuming safe and effective drugs, whenever required, even within the country?

No one seems to have the right answer to this question, be because of various reasons. One such reason, out of various others, could well be how robust is data quality generated by the contract manufacturing companies? These are the core quality related issues, and can’t just be wished away, under any pretext.

Some examples:

On November 12, 2013, the DCGI was quoted saying that the investigative team of the drug regulator concluded that all the data submitted by Puducherry-based contract drug manufacturer ‘GuruFcure’, while seeking approval for manufacturing seven fixed dose combination drugs, are ‘fabricated’ and not ‘authentic’.

‘GuruFcure’, which started operations in 2007, and calls itself “one of the leading pharmaceutical formulation manufacturers in India”, reportedly used to manufacture drugs for some leading pharma MNC and Indian companies, such as: Abbott, Alkem, Glenmark, Wockhardt, Unichem, Intas Pharma, among others.

Though, as per the above media report, Wockhardt and Glenmark said that they were no longer associated with ‘GuruFcure’ at that time, the fact remains, they did market drugs produced by this contract manufacture in the past, and the patients consumed those drugs against doctors’ prescriptions. The saga continues unabated, even today.

On November 28, 2016, a major national English daily reported with a video clip that, following a crackdown since March this year, the drug regulators of seven states have alleged that 27 medicines, sold by 18 major drug companies in India, including Abbott, GSK, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Cipla, Torrent, Alkem, Emcure and Glenmark Pharma, are of substandard quality, citing grounds such as false labelling, wrong quantity of ingredients, discoloration, moisture formation, failing dissolution test and failing disintegration test. Such allegations, though supported by laboratory test results, needs to brought to their logical conclusion. This is mainly because, media reports of this nature fuel lurking apprehension on the overall drug quality standards in India, leading to serious compromise with patients’ health and safety.

Conclusion:

Against this rather gloomy backdrop, a ray of hope comes from a report that CDSCO has started training Indian drug manufacturers in good manufacturing practices, as it tries to address concerns of the USFDA, and other drug regulators, effectively.

Quoting the DCGI, who has now apparently resolved to put together proper practices and regulation in place for the pharma industry, the report says that CDSCO has hired 500 personnel, and is expected to further train employees of other units, to ensure that high quality medicines are manufactured in the country.

These officials will visit drug manufacturing hubs of the country over the next three to four years and train employees in producing quality medicines, following proper procedures and maintaining records. I hope, this will include contract manufacturers too. The question would remain: What happens when these regulatory lapses do not take place out of ignorance or lack of experience or expertise, but are purely intentional to cut corners?

Alleged dubious quality of many drugs manufactured in India is a critical issue, both within the country and with several foreign drug regulators, such as US-FDA, EMA and MHRA, among others. It affects all those who consume such drugs.

Today, even smaller countries are questioning Indian drug quality to protect their patients’ health interest. Thus, everything, when clubbed together, sends a strong signal to the Indian drug regulator to come out of its denial mode, walk the talk, and act decisively to safeguard the interest of Indian patients too.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Escalating Antibiotic Resistance, And Thwarting Ban Of Irrational FDCs

Posted on November 21, 2016 by Tapan Ray

September 2016 ‘Fact Sheet’ of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) raised a red flag on fast increasing incidence of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). It poses a serious threat to global public health, more than ever before. Consequently, effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing and complex range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi are becoming more and more challenging.

In this situation, various medical procedures, such as, organ transplantation, cancer chemotherapy, diabetes management and major surgery like, caesarean sections or hip replacements, invite much avoidable a very high element of risk.

Further, a July 2014 paper titled ‘Antibiotic resistance needs global solutions’, published in ‘The Lancet’ reports increase of incidences of drug-resistant bacteria at an alarming rate. In fact, antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious threats in the history of medicine, and new antibiotics and alternative strategies should be sought as soon as possible to tackle this complex problem.

Another more recent paper titled ‘Fixed-dose combination antibiotics in India: global perspectives’, published in ‘The Lancet’ on August, 2016 finds that nowhere in the world this problem is as stark as in India. It emphasizes that the crude infectious disease mortality rate in India today is 416.75 per 100,000 persons, which is twice the rate prevailing in the United States. Misuse, or rather abuse, of Antibiotics is a major driver of resistance. In 2010, India was the world’s largest consumer of antibiotics for human health, the paper says.

Thus, this critical issue calls for urgent action across all government sectors and the society, in general, as W.H.O cautions.

The Devil is also in irrational antimicrobial FDCs:

The reasons for the fast spread of antimicrobial resistance are many, and each one is well documented. One such factor is the use of irrational antimicrobial FDCs. Some of these have already been banned by the Union Government of India, though continue to be manufactured, promoted, prescribed, sold and consumed by the innocent patients unknowingly.

In this article, I shall focus on the banned FDCs of such kind, highlighting how the consequential serious threat to public health and safety is repeatedly getting lost in the cacophony of protracted court room arguments against these bans.

Irrational FDCs and antimicrobial resistance:

That ‘irrational’ FDCs of antibiotics very often hasten the spread of antimicrobial resistance, is now a well-documented fact.

The ‘National Policy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance in India 2011’ clearly recognizes that: “Antimicrobial resistance in pathogens causing important communicable diseases has become a matter of great public health concern globally including our country. Resistance has emerged even to newer, more potent antimicrobial agents like carbapenems.” The Policy also recommends removal of irrational antibiotic FDCs from the hospital drug list.

‘The Lancet’ article of August, 2016, as mentioned above, also reiterates, while citing examples, that “Studies of several antibiotic combinations, such as meropenem and sulbactam, have reported no additional advantage over their individual constituents, and have been reported to cause toxic reactions and promote resistance. Despite repeated investigations into the shortcomings of some FDCs, such drugs are still being manufactured and promoted on the Indian drug market.”

Why does it matter so much?

Corrective regulatory measures to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance are absolutely necessary in India, for the sake of the patients. According to a paper titled ‘Antibiotic Resistance in India: Drivers and Opportunities for Action’, published in the PLOS Medicine on March 2, 2016: “Out of around 118 antibiotic FDCs available in the Indian market, 80 (68 percent) are not registered with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). Moreover, 63 (19 percent) of around 330 banned FDCs are antibiotics.”

The global relevance:

Such regulatory bans of antimicrobials FDCs in India are important from a global perspective too, as ‘The Lancet’ article of August 2016 observes.

The article recapitulates that the ‘New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase’ – an enzyme that causes bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics, was first reported in India in 2008 and is now found worldwide. The growth of worldwide trade and travel has allowed resistant microorganisms to spread rapidly to distant countries and continents. In addition, some of these banned FDCs in India are reported to be exported to African and Asian countries too.

That said, each country will also need to play a significant role to curtail the abuse or misuse of antibiotics, locally. I find a glimpse of that in England, besides a few other countries.

A research paper of Antibiotic Research UK and EXASOL dated November 12, 2015, concluded that overall antibiotic prescriptions are coming down across England. However, the same paper also articulated that in the deprived areas of the country, such as Clacton-on-Sea, antibiotic prescribing rates are almost twice the national average.

Some big MNCs are no different:

In the Government’s ban list of irrational FDCs even some top brands of pharma MNCs feature, including antibiotic FDC of antibiotics. For example, on Mar 14, 2016, Reuters reported that one of the largest pharma MNCs operating in India – Abbott Laboratories, was selling a FDC of two powerful antibiotics Cefixime and Azithromycin, without approval of the DCGI. This could possibly be a legacy factor, arising out of its acquisition of a good number of branded generic drugs, together with their management, from a domestic pharma company. Abbott, otherwise is well regarded by many as a distinguished global institution, practicing high standards of business ethics and values, across the world.

Be that as it may, this powerful antibiotic cocktail that poses huge health risk to patients has reportedly not received marketing approval in the major global pharma markets, such as, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan.

The Reuters report also elaborates that the drug ‘had been promoted and administered as a treatment for a broad array of illnesses, including colds, fevers, urinary tract infections, drug-resistant typhoid and sexually transmitted diseases.’ It also found chemists who were selling the drug to prevent post-operative infection and for respiratory problems. After the ban, the company has reportedly stopped manufacturing and sales of this antibiotic FDC.

Irrational FDC ban – a significant corrective measure:

Keeping all this in perspective, the regulatory ban on irrational FDCs of antibiotics on March 10, 2016, along with products falling in several different therapy areas, was a significant regulatory measure, among many others, to contain the menace of AMR in India.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of these formulations are still in the market, actively promoted by their manufacturers and widely prescribed by the doctors, till date. This is mainly because, to protect the revenue and profit generated from these brands, concerned pharma companies have obtained an injunction from various high courts against the ban, which was notified by the Government, earlier.

Thwarting FDC ban – a key issue:

Looking back, 294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. At that time also, the same important issue of patients’ health, safety and economic interest got caught in an intriguing legal quagmire. As a result, implementation of the Government’s decision to ban of these irrational FDCs got delayed, indefinitely.

Added to this, irrational antimicrobial FDCs featuring in the ban list of March 10, 2016, got trapped in exactly the same legal battle, yet again. Thus, repeated stalling of Government ban on irrational FDCs, including antibiotics, continue to remain a key health and safety issue in India.

The latest development:

In September 2016, the Union Government has reportedly moved the Supreme Court of India in defense of its March 2016 ban on irrational FDCs.

In its petition, the Union Government has reportedly urged that all cases against the orders related to ban of ‘irrational’ FDCs, now being heard in various High Courts across the country, be transferred to the apex court and heard as a single case. The move is expected to cut any ambiguity that could arise from differing verdicts between high courts.

In case of a verdict favoring the ban of all the notified irrational FDCs, scores of patients will be benefited by not just falling victims to possible health menace arising out of such unjustifiable drugs, as the Government argues, but also due to expected containment of rapid spread of deadly antimicrobial resistance in the country.

Conclusion:

With the ban of irrational FDCs, the Union Ministry of Health has taken one of the much-needed steps to restrict antibiotic resistance in India, besides addressing other health and financial menace caused by such drugs.

The support of the Apex court of India to urgently resolve this legal jig-saw-puzzle, would also help control, though not in a holistic way, the scary antibiotic resistance challenge in India. In that process India would possibly be able to contribute its little bit towards the antibiotic resistance challenge, across the world, if we consider the ‘New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase’ case as a glaring example in this area.

It is, therefore, widely expected that for the greater public interest, the honorable Supreme Court may view this important health and safety issue accordingly, while pronouncing its final verdict. If and when it happens, hopefully soon, the prevailing industry practice in the country to make profits with dubious drug cocktails sans any robust medical rationale, basically at the cost of patients, can’t possibly be thwarted any longer, and will be effectively implemented on the ground.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug Price Control in India: When A Local Media Goes Against, A Global CEO Doesn’t

Posted on November 14, 2016 by Tapan Ray

‘Variety is the spice of life’, as the good old saying goes. The week, just gone by, was indeed packed with a wide variety of surprises, well encompassing various important areas, some of which are as follows:

Effective November 08, 2016 midnight, Indian currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 denominations ceased to remain legal tenders. This demonetization followed extensive media coverage, both national and international, on unprecedented administrative and public chaos around this otherwise bold and good intent.

The same day witnessed much unexpected triumph of Trump as the 45th President-Elect and the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. It is entirely a different matter though, that post-election, millions of Americans reportedly took to streets across the United states to vent their fury over the billionaire’s election victory.

On November 07, 2016, a well-known Indian business daily, ‘The Economic Times’, in its editorial, apparently expressed its solidarity with the pharma industry, in general, to do away with drug price control in India. The key reason for this advocacy, as I could sense, is to encourage the drug players to grow by making more profits. I respect this view of the editor will all humility. However, the point that I am unable to ferret out though, what happens to especially the poor patients in such an eventuality. With hands-on experience in the pharma industry over several decades, it appears to me that the editorial suggestions, as well, grossly lack in requisite depth of understanding of the core issue.

On November 09, 2016, quite opposite to what the above editorial of ‘The Economic Times’, the current global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline – Sir Andrew Witty, in an interview, strongly argued in favor of the necessity of drug price control in India, that improves access to medicines for a vast majority of the country’s population. To substantiate this point Sir Andrew said in another interview on the same day, “We’ve seen demand of products jump 45 percent after the price is cut by 20 percent. The problem arises when we don’t have supply to cater to the demand, leaving patients frustrated. A bit more predictability (on the part of government) will help.”

As if this diametrically opposite views are not enough, on November 10, 2016, the well-known civil society organization – ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’, reportedly sent legal notices to the CEO of Niti Aayog CEO and secretaries to the Health Ministry, Department of Pharmaceuticals and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion over their talks to cut the powers of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). AIDAN has termed this Government move “anti-national” and “anti-people”, further adding that it affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

In this article, I shall restrict myself to the pharma related issue of the past week, especially on the interesting advocacy through editorial, against the drug price control in India. Simultaneously, I shall also underscore its relevance in the country, primarily to improve access to medicines for millions of Indians, as articulated by one of the leading voices from the global pharma industry.

Is the yardstick of judging pharma industry different?

This particular question floats in my mind because of several reasons. One such is, almost regularly sponsoring fully paid trips for doctors, especially in an exotic foreign land, by many pharma companies. Such practices of the drug companies are generally inferred, more often than not spearheaded by a large section of the media, as dubious means of the organization to entice, or influence prescribing decisions of physicians in favor of their respective high priced brands, ignoring the health and economic interest of patients.

In similar context, just after having a quick glance over a not so important article, written on various operations at the headquarter of a global drug company situated in a beautiful locale of the world, when one focuses the fine print at the end as a disclaimer, which reads: “This reporter was in (name of the country) on an invitation by (name of the global company)…, do the readers arrive at the same conclusion on ‘gratification’, as above, and its consequent possible outcome on pharma related writings of these reporters?

Can the concerned members of the ‘Fourth Estate’ possibly claim desired intellectual independence in their analysis of a situation involving such companies or their trade associations, even after the above disclaimer? Or for that matter, related publications too, which allow acceptance of such avoidable ‘gratis’ by its reporters? Shouldn’t such incidences, whenever these happen, irrespective of who availed these, be perceived in the same light?

In the current scenario, this issue is something for us to seriously ponder. This is mainly because, for following similar practices, why should there be two different yardsticks to gauge the quality of professional independence of two different otherwise highly respectable professions?

This reminds me of a great pharma reporter, writing for an internationally acclaimed business daily, mainly on the drug industry and healthcare. I met him in India a few years back on his invitation. Although, I shall not take either his or his paper’s name. This is to show respect to our free and frank interaction. He flew down to India with his employer paying all the pharma reporting work related expenses. He met with all those in the Indian drug industry that he wanted to, primarily to capture the nuances of the thought pattern of large and small Indian pharma players. I was so impressed with his intellect, and independent professional outlook, like all those who met him during his that specific visit to India. Even now, I can feel his independent perspective, as I read his articles. It would be great to experience similar feelings, while reading pharma related articles and editorials, in various publications of my own country. At the same time, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong regarding any such possibilities in this area.

That said, I shall now move on to the relevance of drug price control in India.

Any relevance of drug price control in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

No doubt, this is a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent answers are also available in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with issues related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’, despite intense competition, especially for branded generic drugs in India.

Quoting a practicing surgeon, the DSE article states: “Sometimes it could be just plain ignorance about the availability of a cheaper alternative that makes doctors continue to prescribe costlier brands. But one cannot ignore the role of what is euphemistically called marketing “incentive”, which basically mean the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies exert on doctors. This runs deep. Hospitals choose to stock only certain drugs in their in-house pharmacies and insist that hospitalized patients buy drugs only from the hospital pharmacy. Drug companies sell drugs to hospitals at a price much lower than what the patient is charged, further incentivizing the hospital to stock their products. The cheaper brands often get left out in this game.”

Further, in an ideal free-market economic model, for all approved branded generics with exactly the same formulation, having the same claimable efficacy, safety and quality standards, though marketed by different pharma companies, competitive forces should prompt some parity in their pricing.

Any generic brand with exactly the same formulation as others and offering the same therapeutic value, but costing significantly more, should ideally attract a lesser number of customers, if and where purchase decisions are taken by the consumers directly. However, for prescription medicines it’s not so. The well proven process of consumers exercising their own choice to select a brand, mostly influenced by advertising or word of mouth, does not happen at all.

The Government attributes ‘Market Failure’ for pharmaceuticals:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated the following:

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.

It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines generally unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts the huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on health care.

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

In this context, it is important to note that seven large Civil Society Organizations in a letter of August 20, 2014 addressed to Mr. Ananth Kumar, the present Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers with a copy to Prime Minister Modi, articulated similar views, as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Last week, AIDAN has also indicated that the reported Government move to curtail the power vested on the NPPA for drug price, affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

Are medicines cheapest in India…really?

It is often highlighted that medicines cost much cheaper, if not the cheapest, in India. This is too simplistic a view on this subject. It compares the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against the prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries, only after applying the following two critical parameters:

Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drug pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to the majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

‘Cannot do away with Drug Price Control’ – said the New Government:

On August 24, 2015 in an interview with a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

All stakeholders expect that there is some predictability in what the Government says. Can the stand taken by the policymakers change in just a year’s time, probably wilting under industry pressure?

Conclusion:

The drug price control in India is in vogue since 1970, uninterruptedly. The retail audit data continue to indicate that the growth of the Indian pharma industry, over the last four and half decade long price control regime, has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improved access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. Sir Andrew Witty of GSK also articulated the same view, just the last week. It’s a different story altogether that some of the industry sponsored expensive market surveys attempt to wish it away.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India in 1970, almost all the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about seven are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without frequent M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been probably higher today.

By the way, what’s the span of drug price control in India really – just about 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? Around 80 percent of the local drug market continues to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the promoter of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person in India. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control.

Keeping this in perspective, is it not baffling to fathom the reason behind a local business publication’s apparently endorsing the advocacy initiatives of pharma industry against drug price control through an editorial, when a well-regarded global pharma CEO expresses a strong favorable view in this regard?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations

Posted on November 7, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The term ‘Millennial Generation’ normally refers to the generation, born from 1980 onward, brought up using digital technology and mass media. According to ‘Millennial Mindset’ – a website dedicated to helping businesses understand millennial employees and new ways of working, the key attributes of this generation are broadly considered as follows:

Technology Driven:
Socially Conscious
Collaborative

The millennial mindset:

The publication also indicates that the overall mindset of the millennial generation is also vastly different from the previous generations, which can fall into four categories:

Personal freedom, Non-hierarchical, Interdependent, Connected, Networked, Sharing
Instant gratification, Wide Knowledge, Test and learn, Fast paced, Always on, Innovative
Fairness, Narcissistic, Purpose driven
Balance, Eco-friendly and Experience focused

Seeks different professional ecosystem:

In the professional arena too, this new generation’s expectations from the professional ecosystem are often seen to be distinctly different, as they are generally seen to be:

Willing to make a meaningful professional contribution, mostly through self-learning
Seek maintaining a reasonable balance between work and personal life
Prefer flexible work environment, unwilling to be rigidly bound by convention, tradition, or set rules
Impatient for fast both personal and organizational growth, often on the global canvas

The ‘Millennial Generation’ in India:

The millennium generation with a different mindset, aspirations and value system, already constitutes a major chunk of the Indian demography. According to the 2011 Census, out of estimated 1.2 billion population, around 701 million Indians (60 percent) are under 30 years of age, which also very often referred to as ‘demographic dividend’ of India.

Currently, a large number of Indians belonging to the millennial generation are entering into the work stream of both national and International companies operating in the country.

The challenge in healthcare arena:

In the healthcare sphere too, we now come across a fast increasing number of technology savvy and digitally inclined patients and doctors of this generation. Accurately gauging, and then meeting with their changing expectations has indeed been a challenging task for the pharma companies, and the related service providers.

Their expectations from the brands and other services, as provided by the pharma companies, don’t seem to be quite the same as before, either, so are the individually preferred communication formats, the way of processing, and quickly cross-verifying the product and other healthcare information. Before arriving at any decision, they were found to keenly observe the way brands are marketed, their intrinsic value, type and the quality of interface for engagement with them by the companies, whenever required.

Thus, from the pharma business perspective, qualitatively different strategic approaches, to both the millennial doctors and patients, would be of increasing importance and an ongoing exercise. The goal posts would also keep moving continuously. Achieving proficiency in this area with military precision, I reckon, would differentiate the men from the boys, in pursuit of business performance excellence.

In this article, I shall primarily discuss on the changing mindset and needs of the patients and doctors of the ‘millennial generation’.

A. Treating millennial patients differently:

Around 81 percent of millennial doctors, against 57 percent of older generation doctors think that millennial patients require a different relationship with their doctors than non-millennial patients. About 66 percent of millennial doctors actually act upon this and change their approach, as the survey reported.

The difference:

The key differences on millennial doctors’ treating millennial patients, are mainly in the following areas:

Expects more, doesn’t get swayed away: Millennial doctors are more likely to advise the millennial patients to do additional research on their own for discussion. 71 percent of millennial doctors believe it’s helpful for patients to do online research before their appointment. However, they don’t get swayed by requests from more-informed patients, as only 23 percent of millennial doctors say they are influenced by patient requests when it comes to prescribing a treatment, whereas 41 percent of non-millennial doctors report finding those requests influential.

Gets into the details: The millennial doctors are more likely to simplify and streamline explanations for older patients, whereas non- millennial doctors were more likely to simplify explanations for millennial patients too, treating them exactly the same way.

Relies on digital resources: Millennial doctors rely mostly on using digital resources for treating millennial patients, but only around 56.5 percent of them do so for non-millennial patients.

B. Treating millennial doctors differently:

For effective business engagement and ensure commensurate financial outcomes, pharma companies will first require to know and deeply understand the changing mindset, expectations, and aspirations of the millennial doctors, then work out tailor-made strategic approaches, accordingly, to achieve the set objectives.

Top 3 expectations from the pharma industry:

According to a June 2016 special survey report on Healthcare Marketing to Millennials, released by inVentive Health agencies, the top 3 expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors from the pharma industry, are as follows:

Rank	Millennial Doctors	%	Rank	Non- Millennial Doctors	%
1.	Unbranded Disease Information	67	1.	Unbranded Disease Information	58
2.	Discussion Guides	48	2.	Latest Specific News	46
3.	Adherence Support	40	3.	Healthy Life Style Information	42

Pharma players, therefore, can provide customized offerings and services, in various innovative platforms, based on these top 3 different expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors, to achieve much needed critical competitive edge for a sustainable business performance.

Brand communication process needs a relook:

The above report also noted a number of the interesting trends related to the millennial doctors. I am quoting below just a few of those:

Only 16 percent of millennial doctors found pharma promotional materials to be influential when considering a new treatment compared to 48 percent of non-millennial doctors who do.

79 percent of them refer to information from pharmaceutical companies only after they’ve found that information elsewhere.

65 percent of these doctors indicated, they did not trust information from pharmaceutical companies to be fair and balanced, while only 48 percent of their older peers shared that sentiment.

50 percent found educational experiences that are driven by their peers to be the most relevant for learning and considering about new treatments, against 18 percent of non-millennial physicians.

52 percent of them, when learning about new treatment options, favor peers as their conversation partners.

They are much more likely to rely on a third-party website for requisite product or treatment information

60 percent of millennial doctors are more likely to see a pharma rep, if they offer important programs for their patients, compared to only 47 percent of non-millennial doctors. This also reflects greater patient centric values of the millennial doctors.

However, an overwhelming 81percent of millennial doctors believe that any type of ‘Direct To Consumer (DTC)’ promotion makes their job harder, because patients ask for medications they don’t need.

41 percent of millennial doctors prefer a two-way and an in-person interaction, against just 11 percent of them with online reps. Here, it should be noted that this has to be an ‘interaction’, not just predominantly a monologue, even while using an iPad or any other android tablets.

Redesigning processes to meet changing expectations and needs:

Thus, to create requisite value, and ensure effective engagement with millennial doctors, the pharma companies may consider exploring the possibility of specifically designing their entire chain of interface with Millennials, right from promotional outreach to adherence tools, and from medical communications to detailing, as the survey report highlights. I shall mention below just a few of those as examples:

Communication platforms:

For personal, more dynamic and effective engagement, non-personal digital platforms – driving towards personal interactions with company reps, together with facilitating collaboration between their professional peer groups, came out as of immense importance to them.

Adherence and outcomes:

There is a need for the pharma companies to move the strategic engagement needle more towards patient outcomes. This is mainly because, medication adherence is a large part of the patient outcome equation. It involves a wide range of partnerships, such as, between patients and physicians, and also the physicians and pharma players. This particular need can be best met by offering exactly the type of collaborative approach that millennial doctors favor.

Medical communication:

Redesigning the core narrative of medical communication around a disease state and product, engaging the wisdom and enthusiasm of scientific, clinical, and educational leaders primarily to serve a well-articulated noble cause, are likely to fetch desired results, allaying the general distrust of millennial doctors on the pharma companies, in general.

Medical representative:

Earning the trust of the millennial doctors by respecting, accepting, and appealing to their value systems, is of utmost importance for the medical reps. To achieve this, drug companies would require to equip their reps with tools and programs that offer value in terms of patient support and adherence, while demonstrating compelling outcomes with a positive patient experience, and greater efficiency in treatment decisions.

Building reputation:

The “Purpose Generation” – that’s how millennials are often referred to. In that sense, to build a long lasting business reputation among them, pharma companies need to be in sync with this new generation.

Weaving a trusting relationship with them involves meeting all those needs that these doctors value, such as, adherence solutions, innovative patient support programs, and creating shared value for communities. This would mean, for many drug companies, charting an almost uncharted frontier, where there aren’t many footsteps to follow.

Need to induct younger generation to top leadership positions faster:

To capture these changes with precision, and designing effective engagement strategies for millennial patients and doctors accordingly, an open, innovative and virtually contemporary mindset with a pair of fresh eyes, are essential. As against this, even today, many ‘Baby Boomers’ (born approximately between 1946 and 1956), who have already earned the status of senior citizens, meticulously nursing a not so flexible mind with traditional views, still keep clutching on to the key top leadership positions in the pharma industry, both global and local.

This prevailing trend encompasses even those who are occupying just ornamental corporate leadership positions, mostly for PR purpose, besides being the public face of the organization, sans any significant and direct operational or financial responsibilities. Nevertheless, by pulling all available corporate levers and tricks, they hang-on to the job. In that way, these senior citizens delay the process of change in the key leadership positions with younger generation of professionals, who understand not just the growing Millennials much better, but also the ever changing market dynamics, and intricate customer behavior, to lead the organization to a greater height of all round success.

I hasten to add, a few of the younger global head honcho have now started articulating a different vision altogether, which is so relevant by being a community benefit oriented and patient centric, in true sense. These icons include the outgoing GSK chief Sir Andrew Witty, who explains how ‘Big Pharma’ can help the poor and still make money, and the Allergan CEO Brent Saunders promising to keep drug prices affordable. Being rather small in number, these sane voices get easily drowned in the din of other global head honchos, curling their lips at any other view point of less self-serving in nature. Quite understandably, their local or surrounding poodles, toe exactly the same line, often displaying more gusto, as many believe.

Conclusion:

The triumph of outdated colonial mindset within the drug industry appears to be all pervasive, even today. It keeps striving hard to implement the self-serving corporate agenda, behind the façade of ‘Patient Centricity’. When the demography is changing at a faster pace in many important countries, such as India, a sizeable number of the critical decision makers don’t seem to understand, and can’t possibly fathom with finesse and precision, the changing mindset, aspirations and expectations of the millennial generation doctors and patients.

Expectedly, this approach is increasingly proving to be self-defeating, if not demeaning to many. It’s affecting the long term corporate performance, continually inviting the ire of the stakeholders, including Governments in various countries.

From this perspective, as the above survey results unravel, the millennial doctors and patients, with their changing mindset, aspirations, expectations and demands, look forward to an environment that matches up with the unique characteristics and values of their own generation.

To excel in this evolving scenario, especially in India – with one of the youngest demographic profiles, proper understanding of the nuances that’s driving this change, by the top echelon of the pharma management, is of utmost importance. Only then, can any strategic alignment of corporate business interests with the expectations of fast growing Millennials take shape, bridging the ongoing trust deficit of the stakeholders, as the pharma industry moves ahead with an accelerated pace.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

It’s happening in the West, and is equally widespread in the Eastern part of the globe too, though in different ways and forms, as both the national and international media have been reporting, consistently. The phenomenon is all pervasive, and directed towards stalling almost all possible future laws and policies that a large section of the pharma industry sees as a potential apocalypse for their business models.

It has a wide reach and covers, for example, the policy-decision makers or possible policy-decision makers in the near future, other policy influencers, many hospitals, and the final interface with the patients – the prescription decision makers.

Although, it affects health care as a whole, in this article I shall focus just on the pharma industry.

Looking West:

While looking at the West, I would cite a recent example from the United States. It’s yet another déjà vu for the western pharma industry.

On August 26, 2016, ‘The Los Angeles Times’ in an article titled, “Drug companies spend millions to keep charging high prices” stated, “Of roughly US$ 250 million raised for and against 17 ballot measures coming before California voters in November, more than a quarter of that amount – about US$ 70 million – has been contributed by deep-pocketed drug companies to defeat the state’s Drug Price Relief Act.”

The Drug Price Relief Act of California, is aimed at making prescription drugs more affordable for people in Medi-Cal and other state programs by requiring that California pays no more than what’s paid for the same drugs by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the United States. It would, in other words, protect state taxpayers from being ripped off.

The report also quoted Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation saying that industry donations to crush the Drug Price Relief Act “will top US$ 100 million by the election, I’m quite certain of it.” He further added, “They see this as the apocalypse for their business model.”

Looking East:

While citing a related example from the eastern part of the globe, I shall draw one from nearer home – India, as China has already been much discussed on this matter. This particular media report on a wide-spread pharma industry practice, though took place in a different form, as compared to the United States, belongs to the same genre, and captures yet another déjà vu involving the pharma players operating in the eastern world, similar to what’s happening in the west.

India:

On August 30, 2016 a report published in ‘The Economic Times’ titled, “Pharma cos offer freebies to doctors, violate code: MP” quoted a serious allegation of a Rajya Sabha Member of the Parliament on this issue. The MP claims, he has evidence of four drug companies’ recently bribing doctors across India to push their products. These four companies include both large Indian and multinational pharma players, and two out of these four features, among the top five companies of the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The lawmaker further said, “I am waiting for the minister’s response on this issue. Nothing has come so far. We also have the names of the doctors who have taken bribes, which we will release eventually,”

Another September 06, 2016 report, published by the same business daily in India, categorically mentioned that TOI has documents to establish that one of these companies took hundreds of doctors from across India to places like Vancouver, Amsterdam, Oslo, Venice, New York, Boston, Brussels and Moscow. The documents reportedly include email exchanges between the company executives, city-wise lists of doctors with ‘legacy codes’, names of spouses, passport copies and visa copies, and show how the company has spent several millions of rupees in taking doctors and sometimes even their spouses, ostensibly to attend medical conferences.

Other NGOs have also reportedly submitted proof of the same to the Government for remedial measures in India, against such gross ongoing unethical practices in pharma marketing.

It is worth mentioning here that all these expenses are part of the marketing budget of a company and the sum total of which is built into the ‘retail price to the patients’ of the respective drugs, even in India.

Two broad processes for the same goal:

Thus it emerges, very broadly, there are two key processes followed by many in the pharma industry to achieve the same goal of increasing profit. These are as follows:

Marketing malpractices in various forms to influence prescription decision
Arbitrary increase of drug prices, for both branded and generic medicines

The justification:

Many global pharma majors still keep justifying, though the number of its believers is fast dwindling, that the high new drug prices have a linear relationship with the cost of new drug innovation. Even for argument’s sake one nods in favor, the critical question that needs to be answered is, if this is the basic or primary axle on which the wheel of innovation moves, won’t affordability and access to drugs for a significant number of the population be seriously compromised?

If not, why is this furor, across the world, is fast assuming a snowballing effect? Why are even the generic drug prices going up steeply even in the United States, where some of the largest Indian drug manufacturers are being questioned for the same by the competent authorities of the country?

I deliberated on a similar subject in my article titled, “The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs”, published in this Blog on May 20, 2016.

Marketing malpractices:

Laws are fast catching up to book the offenders resorting to pharma marketing malpractices in most of the countries of the world, including China. This is vindicated by the fact that global pharma players are now paying billions of dollars a fine, in various countries, especially in the West.

Just as no criminal law can totally eliminate any crime, anywhere in the world, despite a heavy dent in pharma’s reputation related to this area, many companies still continue to indulge in such malpractices, blatantly, and even with some brazenness.

India:

Unfortunately, in India, the inertia to catch the bull by the horn and lack of governance in this regard continues, making patients pay a heavy price. As the above media report indicates, both MNCs and the local players indulge into this deplorable activity almost without any inhibition. As many industry watchers believe, some companies have started hiring these services through professional third parties just to create a facade for taking the high moral ground, as and when required, both with the government and also other stakeholders.

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

UCPMP, though not a panacea, was aimed at containing pharma marketing malpractices in India. However, as happened with any other voluntary pharma marketing code, be it of a global drug major or their trade associations, similar non-compliances were detected even by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP. This gross disregard to the code, apparently prompted the DoP contemplating to make the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizer – Mr. Ananth Kumar, in his reply in the Indian Parliament, to a ‘Lok Sabha Starred Question No: 238’ on the UCPMP based on the inputs received, also had admitted:

“The Government had announced Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Practices (UCPMP) which was to be adopted voluntarily w.e.f. 1st January, 2015 for a period of six months and has last been extended up to 30.06.2016. After reviewing the same it was found that the voluntary code was not working as expected. The Government consulted the stakeholders, including NGO’s / Civil Society members and after examining their suggestions it is now looking into the viability of making the Code Statutory.”

This seems to be yet another assurance, and expression of a good intent by the Union Minister. The fact today is, after extending the UCPMP in its original form up to June 30, 2016 with four extensions and despite the Government’s public admission that it is not working, by a circular dated August 30, 2016, the Government has informed all concerned, yet again, that voluntary UCPMP has now been extended ‘till further orders’.

This not only creates public apprehension on the DoP’s true intent on the subject, but also gives enough room for speculation regarding behind the scene power play by the vested interests to keep a mandatory UCPMP, having sufficient legal teeth, away, as long as possible. Are these forces then also visualizing its enforcement as an apocalypse for their business models in India too?

Thus, the possibility of containing pharma marketing malpractices in India is still charting in the realm of the decision makers’ assurances and no further.

Arbitrary drug price increases:

Arbitrary price increases of important drugs are drawing increasing public ire in the West, the latest being a 400 percent price increase of generic EpiPen of Mylan. This is now being considered yet another business malpractice in the pharma industry, as whole.

No robust regulatory or legal measure is now being followed in the West to contain the drug over pricing public health menace. Thus, it is increasingly assuming a critical political significance today to win over the voters, especially in the forthcoming Presidential election of the United States.

Thus, as reported by Reuters, on September 02, 2016, Hillary Clinton announced that, if elected, she would create an oversight panel to protect the consumers of the United States from large price hikes on longer-available, life-saving drugs and to import alternative treatments if necessary, adding to her pledges to rein in overall drug prices.

She would give the ‘Oversight Panel’ an aggressive new set of enforcement tools, including the ability to levy fines and impose penalties on manufacturers when there has been an unjustified, outlier price increase on a long-available or generic drug.

On September 08, 2016, reacting to these proposed measures articulated by Hilary Clinton, the global CEO of the world’s largest pharma player reportedly commented, as expected, that it “will be very negative for innovation.”

Nonetheless, the bottom-line is, even in the United Sates, a transparent mechanism to deal with arbitrary price increases of the existing important medicines, still charts in the realm of several assurances of the probable decision makers, just as it is India to effectively deal with pharma marketing malpractices.

A global CEO’s lone voice stands out:

In this context, I would start with yet another example of astronomical price increase of a widely used anti-diabetic product, besides EpiPen of Mylan. According to Dr. Mayer Davidson, Professor of Medicine at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, who has carefully tracked the rapid and repeated increases, from 2011 to 2013 the wholesale price of insulin went up by as much as 62 percent in the United States. Whereas, from 2013 to 2015 the price jumped again, from a low of 33 percent to as much as 107 percent.

In the midst of this scary situation, a solitary and apparently a saner voice from the global pharma industry stands out. According to an article published in the Forbes Magazine on September 06, 2016, Brent Saunders, CEO of Allergan, ‘explicitly renounced egregious price increases.’ Saunders also said that the industry needs to ‘end its addiction to price hikes far in excess of inflation, often taken several times in a single year.’ While outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” Saunders vowed that Allergan would:

Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts.
Limit price increases to once per year.
Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

Though this seems to be a lone voice in the pharma industry, it makes the CEO stand much taller than his peers.

India:

On this score, India has already put in place the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ to regulate the drug prices of primarily those falling under the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’. However, it is a different matter that as per its own public admission, NPPA is still unable to strictly enforce these price controls, with significant incidences of non-compliance. Therefore, the net benefits to the patients in India for having this mechanism, is indeed arguable.

The core issue:

All that we witness in this area are mostly assurances, promises and good intent on the part of various Governments of different political dispensation, over the last several decades. The same indifference to public health care, in general, continues. Nothing seems to be working effectively in the public health care space of the country, even today. A large section of patients, bearing the tough burden of the highest out of pocket health expenditure in India, are under significant consequential stress of all kinds.

An important part of this scenario is well-captured in the statement of the erstwhile Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016, when he said, “In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened.”

Is it a legacy? Possibly yes. But, who will fix it, and what steps are we taking now for its satisfactory resolution?

The core issue in the pharmaceutical arena is, therefore, about striking an optimal balance between drug profitability and patient affordability, to avoid any adverse impact on access to drugs for a large majority of population in the world.

Conclusion:

Thus, it appears to me, if those who now decide for the people’s health interest, also refuse to wake up from deep slumber and remain as indifferent as before, soon we may hear or read or experience yet another or more of similar deplorable developments, having serious adverse repercussions on the patients.

Interestingly, despite such incidents, pharma stocks remain generally unaffected and buoyant. Its overall trend continues heading north, factoring-in that no implementable Government action is forthcoming, for obvious reasons. Consequently, pharma business remains as robust as ever, but the patients continue to suffer increasingly more.

Pharma industry in general, has been seriously attempting to wash its hands off for this scary emerging situation, since long. It blames the governments for trying to throttle the money spinning business with ‘unnecessary’ regulations, as discussed above, for something that is only the state responsibility, as they perceive. The governments, in turn, blame the industry and try to regulate it more strictly. Invariably, the patients in need of right and affordable medical care get caught in this cross-fire – some succeed to overcome the health crisis, but mostly exposing themselves to huge financial uncertainty in the future, many others can’t.

When the business continues to flourish with current business ‘practices’, why would the pharma players bother about rapidly tarnishing industry reputation, and public outcry? Does it really matter at all on the ground, for running a money spinning business machine, especially when there exists a fair chance of stalling the new laws and policies, with deep pockets, as alleged by many?

In this scenario, what else a common man would do while falling seriously ill, except praying to the almighty for divine care and blessings for a speedy recovery, along with possibly lamenting, it’s déjà vu in the pharma industry?

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Tapan Ray

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer”

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked:

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too.

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general.

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives.

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies.

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be.

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical:

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach. In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples.

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012. It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC):

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Tapan Ray

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject.

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification:

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data:

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study:

The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”

The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged.

Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.

Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.

In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.

The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children.

The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.

One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.

High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in JAMA Oncology, throwing a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014.

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows:

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.”

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades.

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog.

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Drug

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Even Smaller Countries Now Question Indian Drug Quality Standard

Escalating Antibiotic Resistance, And Thwarting Ban Of Irrational FDCs

Drug Price Control in India: When A Local Media Goes Against, A Global CEO Doesn’t

Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?